great_person_progress

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data categories returned, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or requires no parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded with 'Great Person overview' and then packs the relevant detail into a compact semicolon-separated list. No words appear wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is nearly complete because it lists what the tool returns. It stops short of stating the output format or confirming read-only behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. There are no parameters whose meaning the description needs to compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and enumerates the returned information: city specialist progress, thresholds/rates, national General/Admiral XP, and next Prophet faith threshold. It is clearly an informational overview, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like faith_great_person_options or free_great_person_options.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives named. The word 'overview' implies a read-only lookup, but an agent must infer that this tool is for inspecting progress rather than taking an action.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.